One thing that has annoyed me greatly since 2011, is how an overwhelming mass majority of Canuck fans, and even the mass majority of posters on here, have become obsessed with "The Boston Model." It's like everyone wants all of our players to be 6'4" 220 lbs with the ability to drive people through the boards and knock the shit out of someone after the whistle.

Even throughout the last 3 playoffs, when teams such as Los Angeles and Chicago have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are a class above the rest of the NHL right now, all Canuck fans seem to be doing is talking about "The Boston Model", while collectively analyzing the spchinters of Boston from 47 different angles. Even Jim Benning was amused (baffled) when he came here and mentioned that he'd never even heard of "The Boston model" until he came here.

For a second, why don't we forget about "The Boston model" and instead, analyze what has truly made teams successful during the post 2004 salary cap era.

The Recipe for Success:

1) Drafting well:

2) Drafting well, followed by developing said draft picks well: Once you identify which young players will be potential core players for your team, signing them to long term contracts at below market value. This is one thing that both Los Angeles and Chicago have done an INCREDIBLE job of. Look at some of these cap hits and contract lengths. Drew Doughty, Jonathan Quick, Slava Voynov, Mike Richards, Jeff Carter, etc., etc. all signed to long term contracts, and all signed at below market value (lets ignore Richards' decline in play for this season). Chicago Blackhawks = same thing. Patrick Sharp, Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, etc. all signed at long term contracts and below market value cap hits.

3) Committing to either having a Top 3 Goalie in the league, OR having arguably one of the best defensive pairings in the league (with one of your top two defensemen in said defensive pairing being a bona-fide franchise defenseman). The Top 3 goalies in the league are Jonathan Quick, Henrik Lundquist, and Carey Price. Tim Thomas was Top 3 when the Bruins won. However - teams that have won cups without a Top 3 goalie, still have goalies that are reasonably good enough to "hold the fort", while the teams' top defensive pairing and defensive-minded forwards keep opponents at bay. An example of this was when Chicago won their 2 cups with Niemi and Cory Crawford respectively. Both Niemi and Crawford played exceptionally well, but they had 'elite' defensive pairing Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook in front of them. Kings have Drew Doughty and his partner. Bruins had Zdeno Chara and Dennis Siedenberg. The Redwings has Nikalas Lidstrom and his partner. Pens had Kris Letang and Brooks Orpik. Fleury wasn't a Top 3 goalie, but was probably a Top 5-7 calibre that year.

4) A Franchise center + A premiere 1st line forward to play with Franchise center, OR a Franchise Center + An extremely good second line center with respectable Top 6 forwards playing with these two centers on both lines. Too many example to list here. Ron Francis + Mark Recchi, Ryan Getzlaf + Corey Perry, Datsyuk + Zetterberg, Crosby + Malkin, Toews + Kane, Kreijki + Bergeron, Kopitar+ Carter + Brown,

5) A shut down center: Canes had Rod Brind'amor, Hawks had Dave Bolland, Bruins had Bergeron and/or Marchand, Kings have Stoll and Richards. Wings also had someone (Flippula?), but I can't remember who it was. Might've been Kris Draper.

6) SKILL.......complemented by Size and Speed: I think point #6 might be the most important for Canuck fans to understand. When you look at both the past and the present, the root of all successful teams is SKILL.....complemented by size and speed. Period. You look at those great Montreal Canadien teams from yester-year, the Islander and Oilers from the 80's, the Red Wings and Avalanche from the 90's/early 00's, and now teams like Chicago and Los Angeles at current...........the root of all successful teams is still SKILL. Now don't get me wrong - you absolutely cannot afford to be DEFICIENT with size or speed, but SKILL will always be the most important factor. The Kings are a big team, but their skill is ridiculous. Speed isn't a liability. Chicago are a fast team, but their skill is ridiculous. Size isn't a liability.

What truly baffles me, is how people on here constantly talk about the need to become BIGGER and consider "The Boston Model" to be the holy grail of success, but seriously.........

Over the past 3 years, the mighty Bruins have been defeated by teams that were much weaker and punier than them. Washington, Chicago, and Montreal. There's a reason why a team like Boston, though highly successful, hasn't achieved the same level of success as both Chicago and LA in recent years (although this could obviously change). There's a reason why many "big and mean" teams such as San Jose and Philadelphia over the past decade and beyond have never won cups. St. Louis and Nashville haven't won cups the last time I checked.

In fact, San Jose rejuvinanted their game over the past few years by becoming LESS big/brawny, and more skilled, faster, while placing a greater emphasis on developing their prospects.

7) Bringing in Key vets via trade deadline and/or UFA at the right time: Once all of the above have been met, you can make a move for a key vet. Again - Kings with Gaborik, Hawks with Hossa, Bruins with Iginla and Recchi.

What I'd to see the Canucks do:

Get Sam Reinhart: I mentioned this in my last thread, but I'd like us to try and move in this year's draft so that we can select Sam Reinhart. Having Sam Reinhart and Bo Horvat as our future 1-2 punch combo at center, should be a very formiddable duo. You then have Kassian, Jensen, Shinkaruk, etc. as our wingers (speaking of Shinkaruk, another thing that greatly pisses me off about Canuck fans is how they are already writing off Shinkaruk since he's not 6'4 220 lbs. The last time I checked?.............Marty St. Louis sure as fuck wasn't 6'4 220 lbs. Neither was Tyler Toffoli.

Make a move for Tyler Meyers: I think this was THINKER's idea (I guess we should call him 'Betamax' now ), but I'm a huge advocate of this idea. Move our 2015 first round pick and lets get this guy. He's a RH shot, has Chara's size, and has a huge upside. Low risk, potentially extremely high reward. Much like Jacob Markstrom.

Kesler for Brandon Sutter and Derrick Pouliot already: If we get Sam Reinhart, then I'd to see the 'centerpiece' in a potential Kesler deal be a potential franchise defenseman. Pouliot fits that bill.

If everyone lives up to their potential:

Can you imagine what this team could be like if you had Markstrom in net, Pouliot/Meyers as your top shut down pairing, and then guys like Reinhart, Kassian, Jensen, etc. all up front? Think Gaunce, Sutter, and Matthias could form a pretty damned good shut down line? I sure as fuck think so.

I thank you for your time.

Last edited by The Brown Knight on Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

If a team is to have any kind of hope in winning a Stanley Cup, I truly believe that you need atleast one franchise defenseman on your team. A Zdeno Chara, a Drew Doughty, a Nikalas Lidstrom, a Duncan Keith, a PK Subbann, a Ryan McDonough, etc.

A team will be EXTREMELY hard pressed to win without a true franchise defenseman that is a part of one of the best defensive pairings in the league.

One thing that greatly annoyed me about some of the Canucks' teams from 2009-2012, was how we often "boasted" that most of our 5th and 6th defensemen, were all 3rd/4th pairing calibre defenseman (sans Andrew Alberts). To me, this is the most ridiculous and overrated thing of all-time in this Salary Cap era.

Now I'm not saying that defensive depth isn't important............it obviously is, but I'd rather have a team have 1 franchise calibre defensemen on their team (that is a part of what could be considered the best defensive pairing in the league) + regular 3rd/4th defensemen and 5/6th defensemen, as opposed to a team with no franchise calibre defensemen (but 1/2nd calibre defensemen), followed by 4 defensemen that could be considered 3rd/4th calibre defensemen.

Can you imagine what this team could be like if you had Markstrom in net, Pouliot/Meyers as your top shut down pairing, and then guys like Reinhart, Kassian, Jensen, etc. all up front? Think Gaunce, Sutter, and Matthias could form a pretty damned good shut down line? I sure as fuck think so.

I think Strangelove alluded to this, but veteran leadership is also extremely important on a team obviously. Can't just have a bunch of kids on a team flying around playing in roles that they aren't ready for. If that happens, you end up like Edmonton and Florida. I am a huge advocate of keeping the twins, Burrows, Bieksa, and Hamhuis for this very purpose. Anyone else that is over the age of 26 can be moved, but I want those 5 particular guys here as permanent Canucks until they retire.

Yep. This is a major reason we have faded from elite status. Teams like LA and Chicago have integrated younger players into their lineup, whereas we haven't been nearly as successful at that infusion. Obviously, our prospects need to be NHL-ready, and if they aren't, then our drafting needs to be better. Los Angeles drafted 3 guys in the 2009 draft alone that have played over 100 NHL games.

The Canucks have drafted 3 guys since 2005 that have over 100 games, none of whom (Hodgson, Grabner, Raymond) are still with the organization... the Kings have drafted 14 over that span. So they can make moves with some of their prospects (Schenn, Simmonds for Richards) and draft picks because they have depth in that area. When you lack prospect depth, you need to hang on to the ones you have.

4) A Franchise center + A premiere 1st line forward to play with Franchise center, OR a Franchise Center + An extremely good second line center with respectable Top 6 forwards playing with these two centers on both lines. Too many example to list here. Ron Francis + Mark Recchi, Ryan Getzlaf + Corey Perry, Datsyuk + Zetterberg, Crosby + Malkin, Toews + Kane, Kreijki + Bergeron, Kopitar+ Carter + Brown,

I would argue the Sedins belong on that list.

5) A shut down center: Canes had Rod Brind'amor, Hawks had Dave Bolland, Bruins had Bergeron and/or Marchand, Kings have Stoll and Richards. Wings also had someone (Flippula?), but I can't remember who it was. Might've been Kris Draper.

Kesler belongs on this list.

6) SKILL.......complemented by Size and Speed: I think point #6 might be the most important for Canuck fans to understand. When you look at both the past and the present, the root of all successful teams is SKILL.....complemented by size and speed. Period. You look at those great Montreal Canadien teams from yester-year, the Islander and Oilers from the 80's, the Red Wings and Avalanche from the 90's/early 00's, and now teams like Chicago and Los Angeles at current...........the root of all successful teams is still SKILL. Now don't get me wrong - you absolutely cannot afford to be DEFICIENT with size or speed, but SKILL will always be the most important factor. The Kings are a big team, but their skill is ridiculous. Speed isn't a liability. Chicago are a fast team, but their skill is ridiculous. Size isn't a liability.

Well yeah. That boils down to us just not being a good enough hockey team. We can't match up with the Thornton-Marleau-Pavelski-Couture-Hertl's, the Kopitar-Brown-Richards-Williams-Carter-Gaboriks or even the Toews-Kane-Hossa-Sharp depths. We have Sedin-Sedin-Kesler. A guy like Burrows can fake it, but when he's not with the Sedins he's second-line at best.

We're not talented enough up front to play the skill game, and we're not big enough throughout the lineup to play the strength game.

That hates us all for buying into the "Boston model" because they crushed our hopes and dreams with it in 2011; but then goes on to explain how if he were to build the Canucks he would pretty much use exactly the Boston model?

Last edited by ukcanuck on Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

And hates us all for buying into the "Boston model" because they crushed our hopes and dreams with it in 2011; but then goes on to explain how if he were to build the Canucks he would do pretty much use exactly the Boston model?

Fair enough, but I think you missed my main point:

Although Boston has done a lot of great things in building their team, the point I was trying to make was that perhaps the Canucks' fans interpretation of what they perceive to be "The Boston model" (i.e. a bunch of guys that are 6'4 220 lbs) is not the recipe for building a winning franchise.

Boston has done an excellent job in building their franchise, but I don't think many people would argue the fact that both Chicago and Los Angeles have been even better (atleast as of this writing).

Core players derived from smart drafting, and then signing said core players to long term contracts at excellent cap hits. A good mix of size, skill, and speed.

Boston has pretty much done what LA and Chicago have done........with the only key difference being that I think Boston has gone a little too overboard with the size aspect (at the expense of skill). I think Boston's losses to Washington, Chicago, and Montreal this year, was a reflection of this. Too much brawn, leading to being outworked and outhussled......leading to hissy fits from guys like Lucic.

Not everyone has to be 6'4 220 lbs. Skill has always been the root of the most successful teams. Habs from yester-year, Oilers/Isle's from the 80's, Wings/Avs from the 90's/early 00's, and now the Kings and Hawks.

Island Nucklehead wrote:The Canucks have drafted 3 guys since 2005 that have over 100 games, none of whom (Hodgson, Grabner, Raymond) are still with the organization... the Kings have drafted 14 over that span. So they can make moves with some of their prospects (Schenn, Simmonds for Richards) and draft picks because they have depth in that area. When you lack prospect depth, you need to hang on to the ones you have.

Great overall post Isle Nuck.

A part of me wonders if it's just horrifically bad drafting that ultimately killed Gillis and the Canucks, or if it can also be related to the fact that we simply do not develop out draft picks as well as other teams do on the farm.